Transcription

1 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Pat terns & Trends Arrest in the United States, Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., BJS Statistician Highlights The number of murder arrests in the U.S. fell by half between 199 and 21. The adult and juvenile arrest rates dropped substantially in the 199s, while both continued to fall about 2% between 2 and 21, reaching their lowest levels since at least 199. The forcible rape arrest rate fell 59% between 199 and 21, relatively consistently across the period. While the aggravated assault arrest rate fell 31% between 199 and 21, the simple assault arrest rate remained essentially unchanged over the period. In 21, the simple assault arrest rate for females was at its highest level in at least two decades, up 75% since 199; in contrast, in 21, the male arrest rate was at its lowest level in two decades, 12% below its 199 level. The male arrest rate for larceny-theft in 21 was about half of the rate in 199. In comparison, the female arrest rate in 21 was just 8% below its 199 level. The female rate fell 25% between 199 and 2, remained constant for several years, then grew between 25 and 21 to erase most of the decline experienced in the 199s. The male arrest rate for motor vehicle theft in 21 was a fourth of its 199 level, and the female arrest rate was half its 199 value. The juvenile and adult arrest rates for weapon law violations in 21 were half of what they had been at their peaks in mid-199s. There were 8% more arrests for drug possession or use in 21 than in 199. Even though the rate declined between 26 and 21, the arrest rate for drug possession or use in 21 was still 46% above its 199 level and was at levels similar to those seen between 1997 and 22. In 21, state and local law enforcement agencies made one arrest for drug sale or manufacture for every four arrests for drug possession or use. While the arrest rate for drug possession or use increased substantially between 199 and 21, the arrest rate for drug sale or manufacture in 21 was at its lowest level in the period, and 3% below its 199 level. October 212, NCJ Introduction The FBI s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects counts of arrests (including citations and summonses) in several offense and demographic categories from participating state and local law enforcement agencies. For many years, the FBI has published national estimates of arrests based on these data in its Crime in the United States series. In Crime in the United States, 21, the FBI estimated that state and local law enforcement agencies made a total of 13,122, arrests in 21, and provided national arrest estimates in 28 separate offense categories. This report expands the FBI s set of published national arrest estimates to include estimates of arrests in various age, sex, and race groups within offense categories (tables 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and changes in arrest rates by offense and demographic groups (table 7). The report also contains graphs displaying trends in arrest rates for individual offenses between 199 and 21 and graphs of age-specific arrest rates for 199, 2 and 21. These figures show changes in arrest rates and provide insight into the flow of individuals into the criminal justice system over time. To interpret the arrest statistics in this report, readers should review the FBI s counting rules discussed in the Methodology. This report uses arrest rates rather than arrest counts to display arrest trends because rates control for changes in the size of the reference population over the period. In addition, readers should carefully review graph legends before studying the report s graphs because some arrest rates have been multiplied by a constant to make the trends more visible. In addition to this report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has an online data analysis tool that enables users to generate graphs and tables of national arrest trends and arrest rates for a large set of offenses and population subgroups. Although this report does not analyze arrests and arrest rates by the offender s race, arrest data by race are available in the online tool on the BJS website. This data tool enables users to produce, with little effort, customized information that is often not readily available or that cannot be found in any other source. BJS

3 Murder and non-negligent manslaughter The UCR defines murder (and non-negligent manslaughter) as the willful killing of one human being by another. It excludes deaths caused by negligence, accidental deaths, and justifiable homicides (i.e., the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen). State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 11,2 arrests for murder in 21 (table 1). Females were 11% of these arrests. The median age in murder arrests was 26 (i.e., half of all murder arrests involved persons age 26 or younger, and half involved persons age 26 or older). Nine percent of murder arrests in 21 involved a juvenile (i.e., a person under age 18), 18% involved persons age 4 or older, and 8% involved persons age 5 or older. The murder arrest rate declined substantially between 199 and 21, falling 61% over the period (figure 1, table 7). While most of the decline occurred between 199 and 2, the arrest rate continued to decline between 2 and 21, falling 23% in the period. The murder arrest rate in 21 was at its lowest level in at least two decades. In absolute terms, the number of murder arrests in the U.S. was cut in half between 199 and 21, from 23, arrests in 199 to 11,2 arrests in 21. For murder and most of the other offenses discussed in this report, the large declines in arrest rates were mainly due to decreases in the respective crime rates. The murder arrest trends between 199 and 21 were generally similar for males and females (and therefore similar to the overall trend) (figure 2).* The arrest rate trends differed for juveniles and adults (figure 3). In the early 199s, as the adult rate declined marginally, the juvenile arrest rate for murder reached historic highs, peaking in Between 1993 and 2, while the adult arrest rate dropped 44%, the juvenile arrest rate fell 71%. Between 2 and 21, although the adult and the juvenile arrest rates did not decline as much as they had in the 199s, both rates continued their downward trend to fall around 2% over the period. In 21, both the juvenile and the adult arrest rates were at their lowest levels since at least 199. The murder arrest rate peaked in 21 at age 19 (figure 4). As these age-arrest curves show, the changes in murder arrest rates over the period from 199 to 21 did not occur uniformly across age groups. While the period from 199 to 2 saw large declines across all age groups, the overall decline in the murder arrest rate between 2 and 21 was primarily the result of continuing declines in arrests for older juveniles and young adults (i.e., persons between 17 and 29 years old). Figure 1 Murder arrest rates Figure 2 Murder arrest rates, by sex 2 Male 15 Female* Figure 3 Murder arrest rates, by age group Juvenile*4 5 Adult Figure 4 Murder age-arrest curves *Some arrest rates have been multiplied by a constant to make the trends more visible Arrest in the United States, October 212 3

4 Forcible rape and other sex offenses Currently, for UCR arrest statistics, forcible rape is defined as the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. This definition includes rape, attempts to rape, and assaults to rape, regardless of the age of the victim. This definition of forcible rape is limited to the act of sexual intercourse, or the penetration of a female sexual organ by a male sexual organ. Forcible rape excludes other types of violent sexual assaults (i.e., forcible sodomy, forcible sex with an object, and forcible fondling) and other types of sex offenses (e.g., prostitution, commercialized vice, incest, indecent exposure, and statutory rape). State and local law enforcement agencies made about 2,1 arrests for forcible rape in 21. Females were 1% of these arrests. The median age in forcible rape arrests was 28. Fourteen percent of these arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 23% involved persons age 4 or older, and 9% involved persons age 5 or older. The forcible rape arrest rate fell 59% between 199 and 21 (figure 5). The decline was relatively consistent across the period. In the most recent 5-year period, from 25 to 21, the forcible rate arrest rate fell 25%. The overall percentage changes in the arrest rate from 199 to 21 were similar for juveniles (down 58%) and adults (down 59%), as were the juvenile (down 29%) and adult (down 24%) changes from 25 to 21 (figure 6). Consistent with this pattern, the age-arrest curves show the proportional declines in arrest rates between 199 and 21 across the age spectrum (figure 7). In 21, the forcible rape arrest rate peaked at age 19. In 21, law enforcement agencies made an estimated 135,3 arrests for sex offenses other than forcible rape. This category includes offenses ranging from violent sex assaults other than forcible rape to prostitution and commercialized vice to indecent exposure and statutory rape. About half (62,7) of these arrests were arrests for prostitution and commercialized vice. Two-thirds (69%) of prostitution and commercialized vice arrests in 21 were arrests of females, with a median age at arrest of 3 for females and 36 for males. Two percent of prostitution and commercialized vice arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, a proportion that has averaged between 1% and 2% since at least 199. In 21, 3% of prostitution and commercialized vice arrests involved persons age 4 or older and 9% involved persons age 5 or older. In 21, the arrest rate for prostitution and commercialized vice peaked at age 22, with a peak age of 2 for females and the late 2s for males. From 199 to 21, the arrest rate for prostitution and commercialized vice was cut in half (down 55%), with substantial declines in both the male (down 62%) and female (down 5%) arrest rates (figure 8). The recent period from 25 to 21 also saw large declines in the male (down 35%) and female (down 27%) arrest rates for prostitution and commercialized vice. Figure 5 Forcible rape arrest rates Figure 6 Forcible rape arrest rates, by age group Figure 7 Forcible rape age-arrest curves Juvenile*2 Adult Figure 8 Prostitution and commercialized vice arrest rates, by sex Female Male 21 Arrest in the United States, October 212 4

5 Robbery The UCR defines robbery as taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons, by force, threat of force, violence, or by putting the victim in fear. State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 112,3 arrests for robbery in 21. Females were 12% of these arrests. The median age in robbery arrests in 21 was 21. Twentyfour percent of robbery arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 11% involved persons age 4 or older, and 3% involved persons age 5 or older. The robbery arrest rate fell sharply (down 42%) from to 2 and then remained relatively constant through 21 (figure 9). Given that males were involved in a large majority of these arrests, the trend in the male arrest rate followed a similar pattern, declining 42% from to 2 and stabilizing thereafter (figure 1). In contrast, while the robbery arrest rate for females declined 38% between and 2 (similarly to the male rate), it increased 19% between 2 and 21. As a result, between 199 and 21 the decline in the male arrest rate for robbery (down 49%) was greater than the decline in the female rate (down 19%). The juvenile and adult arrest rates for robbery in 21 were near their lowest levels in a 2-year period (figure 11). Over the period from 199 to 21, declines in the robbery arrest rates for juveniles (down 41%) and adults (down 47%) were similar, as were the more recent juvenile (down 7%) and adult (down 6%) declines between 25 and 21. The difference in these two trends occurred in the 199s. While the adult arrest rate for robbery declined consistently during the 199s, the juvenile rate increased through the middle of the decade before beginning a substantial decline; as a result, between 199 and 2 both rates declined about 4%. The juvenile arrest rates for the violent offenses of murder and aggravated assault also peaked in the mid-199s. In 21, the robbery arrest rate peaked at age 18 (figure 12). The age-arrest curves show a substantial decline in arrest rates across all ages from 199 to 2. The similarity in the 2 and 21 curves reflect the stability in the robbery arrest rates over this period for all age groups. Figure 9 Robbery arrest rates Figure 1 Robbery arrest rates, by sex Figure 11 Robbery arrest rates, by age group Male Female*6 21 Juvenile Adult 21 Figure 12 Robbery age-arrest curves Arrest in the United States, October 212 5

6 Aggravated assault The UCR defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. It excludes simple assaults: crimes in which no weapon is used or no serious or aggravated injury results to the victim. State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 48,5 arrests for aggravated assault in 21. Females were 23% of these arrests. The median age in aggravated assault arrests was 29. Eleven percent of aggravated assault arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 25% involved persons age 4 or older, and 9% involved persons age 5 or older. The aggravated assault arrest rate began to fall in the mid-199s (figure 13). From its peak in to 21, the aggravated assault arrest rate declined 38%. It declined 13% between 25 and 21. In 21, the male arrest rate for aggravated assault was at its lowest level since at least 199. This was not true for the female rate (figure 14). The female arrest rate for aggravated assault increased 47% between 199 and. The female rate then gradually declined after, but in 21 it was still 35% above its 199 level. Trends in the juvenile and adult arrest rates were very similar between 199 and 21 (figure 15). Over this period, the adult arrest rate fell 3% and the juvenile arrest rate fell 4%, both reaching their lowest levels in at least two decades in 21. In the most recent 5-year period, the decline in the juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault (down 28%) was greater than the decline in the adult arrest rate (down 11%). The aggravated assault arrest rate peaked in 21 at age 21, while the peak was age 18 in 199 (figure 16). In general, the decline in the aggravated assault arrest rate between 199 and 21 was greater for juveniles and younger adults than for older adults. In fact, the aggravated assault arrest rates for persons age 4 or older in 21 were about the same as in 199. Figure 13 Aggravated assault arrest rates Figure 14 Aggravated assault arrest rates, by sex Male 199 Female* Figure 15 Aggravated assault arrest rates, by age group Adult Juvenile* Figure 16 Aggravated assault age-arrest curves Arrest in the United States, October 212 6

7 Simple assault The UCR defines simple assault as an assault or attempted assault that does not involve a weapon or no serious or aggravated injury results to the victim. Stalking, intimidation, coercion, and hazing are included in this category of offense. State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 1,292,5 arrests for simple assault in 21. Females were 27% of these arrests. The median age in simple assault arrests was 28. Sixteen percent of simple assault arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 24% involved persons age 4 or older, and 8% involved persons age 5 or older. In 21, the FBI reported three arrests for simple assault for every one arrest for aggravated assault; the ratio was 2-to-1 in 199. While the aggravated assault arrest rate fell 31% between 199 and 21, the simple assault arrest rate remained essentially unchanged over the period (figure 17). There were large differences in the male and female arrest rate trends. In 21, the simple assault arrest rate for females was at its highest level in at least two decades, up 75% since 199. In contrast, in 21, the male arrest rate was at its lowest level in two decades, 12% below its 199 level (figure 18). Nearly all of the growth in the female arrest rate during this period occurred between 199 and From 1997 to 21, the female rate remained relatively constant. While both the juvenile and adult arrest rate trends for aggravated assault followed a similar pattern of decline between the mid-199s and 21, the simple assault arrest rate trends differed for the two age groups. Between 199 and 1997, the increase in the juvenile arrest rate (48%) was greater than the adult increase (22%) (figure 19). After 1997, the adult arrest rate gradually declined, and by 21, it had returned to its 199 level. In contrast, the juvenile rate remained relatively constant from the mid-199s through the mid-2s, then declined 17% between 25 and 21. Despite this decline, the juvenile arrest rate for simple assault in 21 was still 21% above its 199 level. In 21, the simple assault arrest rate peaked at age 16, the youngest peak age of a violent crime (figure 2). The simple assault agearrest curves show the changing age composition of adult arrests between 199 and 21. Simple assault arrest declined for younger adults between 199 and 21, which helped to dampen the increase in the arrest rates for older adults age 35 or older. The agearrest curves for males and females separately show that from 199 to 21 the simple assault arrest rates for females increased across all ages, while it increased for older adult males and declined for young adult males (not shown). Figure 17 Simple assault arrest rates Male Female* Figure 18 Simple assault arrest rates, by sex 1, Figure 19 Simple assault arrest rates, by age group 8 Juvenile* Figure 2 Simple assault age-arrest curves 1,2 1, Adult Arrest in the United States, October 212 7

8 Burglary The UCR defines burglary as the unlawful entry into a structure (home, apartment, barn, church, factory, garage, or school) to commit a felony or a theft. Thefts from automobiles or coinoperated machines (non-structures) and shoplifting from commercial establishments (lawful entries) are classified as larceny-thefts, not burglaries. A larceny-theft may be an element of a burglary (a person enters a home and steals property), but an arrest for such crimes is classified as a burglary using the UCR s hierarchy rule. (See the Methodology for an explanation of the UCR s hierarchy rule.) State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 289,8 arrests for burglary in 21. Females were 15% of these arrests. The median age in burglary arrests was 22. Twenty-three percent of burglary arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 14% involved persons age 4 or older, and 4% involved persons age 5 or older. The burglary arrest rate fell 41% between 199 and 2 and remained relatively constant through 21 (figure 21). This decline was seen in male but not female arrest rates (figure 22). While the male arrest rate for burglary declined 44% between 199 and 2 and 12% between 2 and 21, the female arrest rate changed very little over the entire period. The adult arrest rate also mirrored the overall trend. Unlike the adult rate, the juvenile arrest rate for burglary continued to decline after 2, falling 33% between 2 and 21 (figure 23). In all, between 199 and 21, the adult arrest rate for burglary fell 39% while the juvenile rate fell 61%. The burglary arrest rate peaked at age 18 in 21 (figure 24). The age-arrest curves show the substantial declines between 199 and 2 in the burglary arrest rates for juveniles and younger adults (i.e., persons under age 35) and the continuing decline between 2 and 21 for juveniles. Figure 21 Burglary arrest rates Figure 22 Burglary arrest rates, by sex Males 1 Females* Figure 23 Burglary arrest rates, by age group 3 Juvenile 2 1 Adult Figure 24 Burglary age-arrest curves 1, Arrest in the United States, October 212 8

9 Larceny-theft The UCR defines larceny-theft as unlawfully taking, carrying, leading, or riding away with property from the possession or constructive possession of another. Larceny-theft includes shoplifting, bicycle theft, theft of motor vehicle parts and accessories, pocketpicking, or the stealing of any property or article that is not taken by force and violence or by fraud. Embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, check fraud, etc., are excluded. Motor vehicle theft is also excluded from this arrest statistic. State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 1,271,4 arrests for larceny-theft in 21. Females were 44% of these arrests, a percentage much larger than in burglary (15%) and motor vehicle theft (17%) but similar to the percentage of fraud arrests (42%). (Fraud is a crime that involves a taking by deceit and includes such acts as the misuse of a credit card or writing bad checks.) The median age in larceny-theft arrests was 24. Twentytwo percent of larceny-theft arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 2% involved persons age 4 or older, and 7% involved persons age 5 or older. Similarly to the arrest rate trend for burglary, the larceny-theft arrest rate declined between 199 and 2 (falling 34%), fluctuated within a narrow range between 2 and 21, and ended the decade at the same level as in 2 (figure 25). The male arrest rate likewise fell through the 199s, dropping 38% between 199 and 2, and continued a much more gradual decline between 2 and 21 (figure 26). As a result, the male arrest rate for larceny-theft in 21 was about half of its 199 level. In comparison, the female arrest rate for larceny-theft in 21 was just 8% below its 199 level. The female rate fell 25% between 199 and 2 and then remained constant for several years, but the growth in the female arrest rate between 25 and 21 erased most of the decline during the 199s. The declines in the juvenile (down 31%) and the adult (down 35%) arrest rates for larceny-theft were similar between 199 and 2 (figure 27). However, between 2 and 21, while the juvenile rate continued to decline (falling 25%), the adult rate increased 1%. Both the juvenile and adult arrest rates for larceny-theft reached their lowest levels in the entire period during 26. In 21, while the adult arrest rate for larceny-theft was 18% above its lowest point, the juvenile arrest rate was near its lowest level since at least 199. In 21, the larceny-theft arrest rate peaked at age 18 (figure 28). The age-arrest curves show that the overall decline in the larcenytheft arrest rate between 199 and 21 was linked to large drops in the arrest rates for juveniles and adults ages 25 to 4. Over this long period, the larceny-theft arrest rates for persons ages 19 and 2 fell relatively little. Figure 25 Larceny-theft arrest rates Figure 26 Larceny-theft arrest rates, by sex 1, 8 6 Male 4 Female Figure 27 Larceny-theft arrest rates, by age group 8 6 Juvenile 4 Adult Figure 28 Larceny-theft age-arrest curves 3, 199 2, 1, Arrest in the United States, October 212 9

10 Motor vehicle theft The UCR defines motor vehicle theft as the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self-propelled and runs on a land surface and not on rails. Motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment are specifically excluded from this category. Thefts of these items would be larceny-thefts. State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 71,5 arrests for motor vehicle theft in 21. Females were 17% of these arrests. The median age in motor vehicle theft arrests was 23. Twenty-two percent of motor vehicle theft arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 15% involved persons age 4 or older, and 4% involved persons age 5 or older. In 199, there were 211,3 arrests for motor vehicle theft, almost three times more than in 21. The period between 1999 and 25 saw relative stability in the motor vehicle theft arrest rate, while the periods from 199 to 1999 (down 4%) and 25 to 21 (down 54%) each had large declines (figure 29). As a result, the 21 motor vehicle theft arrest rate was 73% below its 199 level. While the trend in the male arrest rate generally followed the overall pattern, the trend in the female arrest rate for motor vehicle theft showed little change between 199 and 25 (figure 3). Over this period, while the male arrest rate was cut in half (down 47%), the female arrest rate remained essentially unchanged (up just 6%). Both the male and the female arrest rates were cut in half (both falling 54%) between 25 and 21. As a result, the male arrest rate for motor vehicle theft in 21 was a fourth of its 199 level, and the female arrest rate was half of its 199 value. The juvenile proportion of motor vehicle theft arrests in the U.S. was cut in half between 199 (43%) and 21 (22%). Correspondingly, over this period, the motor vehicle theft arrest rate declined more for juveniles (down 85%) than for adults (down 63%) (figure 31). While both arrest rates were cut by more than half between 25 and 21, the period from 199 to 25 saw a much greater decline in the juvenile (down 64%) than the adult (down 24%) arrest rate for motor vehicle theft. In 21, the motor vehicle theft arrest rate peaked at age 18 (figure 32). The age-arrest curves show the steady decline in the motor vehicle theft arrest rate across the entire age spectrum from 199 to 2 and then again from 2 to 21, with the largest proportional declines in the juvenile arrest rates. Figure 29 Motor vehicle theft arrest rates Figure 3 Motor vehicle theft arrest rates, by sex Figure 31 Motor vehicle theft arrest rates, by age group Juvenile Adult 25 Figure 32 Motor vehicle theft age-arrest curves Male Female* Arrest in the United States, October 212 1

11 Weapon law violations The UCR defines weapon law violations as violations of laws or ordinances that prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation, possession, concealment, or use of firearms, cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices, or other deadly weapons. Attempts to violate these laws are included. The UCR s hierarchy rule classifies an arrest in this category only when the weapon law violation is the most serious charge in the arrest. Arrests for murder with a firearm, rape with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, aggravated assault with a weapon, or carjacking with a gun (even though these crimes involve a weapon) would not be classified as weapon law violation arrests in the UCR arrest statistics. (See the Methodology for more details about the UCR s hierarchy rule.) State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 159, arrests for weapon law violations in 21. Females were 18% of these arrests. The median age in weapon law violation arrests was 23. Twenty percent of weapon law violation arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 16% involved persons age 4 or older, and 6% involved persons age 5 or older. In 199, state and local law enforcement agencies made 221,2 arrests for weapon law violations, almost 4% more than in 21. In the last two decades, the arrest rate for weapon law violations peaked in 1993 and fell through the remainder of the decade (figure 33). By 2, the arrest rate had fallen over 4% from its 1993 high. Between 2 and 28, the arrest rate varied within a limited range before the declines in 29 and 21 brought the arrest rate to its lowest level since at least 199. The arrest rate for weapon law violations declined 42% overall between 199 and 21. The arrest rate trends for males and females paralleled each other from 199 to 21, with overall declines in the male rate (down 43%) and the female rate (down 33%) (figure 34). The juvenile and the adult arrest rates paralleled each other for most of this period, from the mid-199s onward. The trends differed between 199 and 1994, when the juvenile rate increased nearly 5% and the adult arrest rate changed very little. In 21, the juvenile and the adult arrest rates for weapon law violations were half of their peak levels in mid-199s. The weapon law violation arrest rate peaked at age 18 in 21 (figure 36). The age-arrest curves show large declines in the arrest rates for weapon law violations across all ages from 199 to 2. Between 2 and 21, the continuing declines were primarily found in the arrests of persons under the age of 23. Figure 33 Weapon law violation arrest rates Figure 34 Weapon law violation arrest rates, by sex Male Female*1 Figure 35 Weapon law violation arrest rates, by age group Juvenile 21 Adult Figure 36 Weapon law violations age-arrest curves Arrest in the United States, October

12 Drug abuse violations The UCR defines drug abuse violations as violations of laws that prohibit the production, importation, distribution, possession, or use of certain controlled substances (e.g., marijuana, opium, and cocaine and their derivatives, and synthetic narcotics). The UCR divides drug abuse violation arrests into two general categories: (1) possession or use, and (2) sale or manufacture. State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 1,336,5 arrests for drug possession or use in 21. Females were 2% of these arrests. The median age in drug possession or use arrests was 26. Eleven percent of drug possession or use arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 18% involved persons age 4 or older, and 6% involved persons age 5 or older. There were 8% more arrests for drug possession or use in 21 (1,336,53) than in 199 (741,6). Between 199 and its peak in 26, the arrest rate for drug possession or use increased 75% (figure 37). The arrest rate declined between 26 and 21, ending in 21 at 46% above its 199 level and at a level similar to those seen between 1997 and 22. The male and female arrest rate trends for drug possession or use were similar to the overall trend (figure 38). Between 199 and 1997, the increases in the male (51%) and female (56%) arrest rates were similar. Both arrest rates then remained relatively constant through 22, peaked in 26, and declined through 21. In 21, the arrest rate for drug possession or use had fallen 17% for males and 16% for females from their 26 peaks. The juvenile and adult arrest rate trends differed over the period from 199 to 21 (figure 39). While both arrest rates for drug possession or use increased substantially between 199 and 1997, the increase in the juvenile rate (27%) was far greater than the increase in the adult rate (41%). From its peak in 1997 through 21, the juvenile arrest rate for drug possession or use gradually declined, falling 2% in the period. Due to its substantial growth in the 199s, the juvenile arrest rate for drug possession or use in 21 was 147% above its 199 level. In contrast to the declining juvenile trend, the adult arrest rate experienced a short period of stability between 1997 and 22 and then increased to a peak in 26 before falling through 21. In 21, the adult arrest rate for drug possession or use had returned to the levels of the late 199s and was 36% above its 199 level. In 21, the drug possession or use arrest rate peaked at age 18 (figure 4). The age-arrest curves show that the increases between 199 and 21 in the arrest rates for drug possession or use occurred unevenly across the age spectrum, with the largest percentage increases for persons under the age of 21 and above the age of 4. Over the period, the arrest rates of persons ages 25 to 35 were relatively stable. Figure 37 Drug possession/use arrest rates Figure 38 Drug possession/use arrest rates, by sex 1, 8 Male 6 Female* Figure 39 Drug possession/use arrest rates, by age group 8 6 Adult 4 Juvenile* Figure 4 Drug possession/use age-arrest curves 2,5 2, 2 1,5 1, Arrest in the United States, October

13 In 21, state and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 32,3 arrests for drug sale or manufacture, one such arrest for every four arrests for drug possession or use. Eighteen percent of these were arrests of females. The median age in drug sale or manufacture arrests was 28. Eight percent of drug sale or manufacture arrests in 21 involved a juvenile, 19% involved persons age 4 or older, and 7% involved persons age 5 or older. In stark contrast to the substantial increase in arrests for drug possession or use over the period, there were 13% fewer arrests for drug sale or manufacture in 21 than in 199 (347,9). Although there were fluctuations from year to year, over the period, the arrest rate for drug sale or manufacture gradually declined. In 21, the arrest rate for drug sale or manufacture was at its lowest level in the period, and 3% below its 199 level (figure 41). The male (down 32%) and the female (down 19%) arrest rates for drug sale or manufacture declined between 199 and 21, both falling to levels at or near their lowest of the period (figure 42). In 21, both the juvenile and adult arrest rates for drug sale or manufacture were also at their lowest levels in at least 2 years (figure 43). In 21, the drug sale or manufacture arrest rate peaked at age 19, one year higher than the drug possession or use peak (figure 44). The age-arrest curves show a general decline in the age-specific arrest rates across the age spectrum between 199 and 21, although the declines did not occur in the same time periods. Between 199 and 2, the arrest rates of persons between age 25 and 35 fell to levels that would also be seen in 21. In contrast, the decline in the arrest rates of juveniles and very young adults did not occur between 199 and 2 (in fact, for some ages there was an increase), but happened between 2 and 21 after the arrest rates of older adults had stabilized. Figure 41 Drug sale/manufacturing arrest rates Figure 42 Drug sale/manufacturing arrest rates, by sex Male Female*4 21 Figure 43 Drug sale/manufacturing arrest rates, by age group 2 15 Adult 1 Juvenile* Figure 44 Drug sale/manufacturing age-arrest curves Arrest in the United States, October

14 Methodology The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division of the FBI provided the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) with the set of annual, Sex, and Race (ASR) Arrest Master Files for the years 199 through 21. Each of these annual files holds counts of the reported arrests from each law enforcement agency that submitted its arrest data for the complete 12-month period. The files also contain an estimate of the population served by each agency. The FBI classifies law enforcement agencies into nine population groups based on the estimated annual population and the nature of the community that the agency serves. From 199 to 21, on average, 6% of law enforcement agencies in the UCR annually reported complete 12-month arrest counts. These agencies served an average of 77% of the U.S. resident population. The population coverage was greater than the proportion of agencies reporting because larger agencies reported at a higher rate than smaller agencies. On average, over the period, agencies annually reported 79% of all arrests estimated to have occurred in the U.S. The estimation procedures used in this bulletin were designed to develop the offense and demographic attributes of the 21% of arrests that the FBI estimated occurred in the nonreporting law enforcement agencies. An assessment of the coverage of the annual samples is in table 2. In the first step of the estimation process, the annual 12-month arrest counts were summed for all law enforcement agencies within each of the nine population groups. Two tables were produced for each population group with arrest counts at the most detailed demographic levels supported by the data. These two table shells were: Offense (in 33 offense categories) by age of arrestee (in 22 age groups) by sex (in two categories male and female) Offense (using 33 offense categories) by age of arrestee (in two age categories juvenile and adult) and race (in four race categories white; black; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Next, the cells in these 18 tables (i.e., 2 shells for each of 9 strata) were each weighted by a factor equal to the total population served by all law enforcement agencies in the population group divided by the population served by all reporting law enforcement agencies in the population group. Then, the nine Offense by by Sex tables were combined into one table, as were the nine Offense by by Race tables. Finally, the cells in these two tables were each multiplied by the ratio of the FBI s annual national offensespecific arrest estimate divided by the sum of all cells in the table with that offense. This transformed each of these table cells into a national estimate for that cell s demographic subgroup. This process made all of the annual arrest count estimates for the subgroups internally consistent with the FBI s published national estimates. Arrest rates were calculated using national resident population estimates for the various subgroups developed by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics. Estimates of the U.S. resident population from 199 through 1999 can be found at National Center for Health Statistics. Bridged-race intercensal estimates of the July 1, 199-July 1, 1999 United States resident population by county, single-year of age (, 1, 2,.., 85 years and over), sex, race, and Hispanic origin, prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau with support from the National Cancer Institute. Available from ftp://ftp. cdc.gov/pub/health_statistics/nchs/datasets/nvss/ bridgepop/icen_nata1.txt. Downloaded 3/15/211. Estimates of the U.S. resident population from 2 through 21 can be found at National Center for Health Statistics. Vintage Bridged-race postcensal estimates of the July 1, 2-July 1, 29 United States resident population by year, single-year of age (, 1, 2,.., 85 years and over), sex, bridged race, and Hispanic origin. Prepared under a collaborative arrangement with the U.S. Census Bureau. Available from: gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm as of May, 31, , following release by the U.S. Census Bureau of the unbridged Vintage 21 postcensal estimates by 5-year age group on March 29, 212. UCR counting rules Less than half of all victims of violent and property crimes reported their crimes to law enforcement in 21, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. For crimes known to law enforcement, less than half of violent crimes and less than a fifth of property crimes were cleared by arrest. Therefore, the annual number of arrests underestimates substantially the number of crimes committed. In addition, arrest trends cannot be assumed to parallel crime trends. Only if the many factors that influence arrest rates (e.g., victim reporting rates, crime clearance rates) were to remain constant over time, could trends in arrests be used to infer trends in crime. Finally, an annual arrest count should not be interpreted as the number of persons arrested in the year. Arrests could only be interpreted as a count of persons arrested if every person arrested in the year were arrested only once in the year which is clearly untrue. In the end, the most appropriate way to interpret arrest statistics is as a measure of the flow of matters into law enforcement agencies. Arrest in the United States, October

15 Readers should be aware of some nuances of the counting rules used by the FBI s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) to interpret arrest statistics properly: The hierarchy rule: The FBI requires law enforcement agencies to apply an offense hierarchy rule when reporting arrests. That is, if a person is arrested and charged with multiple offenses (e.g., robbery and possession of a weapon), the arrest is reported to the UCR as a single arrest for the most serious charge (in this case, robbery). As a result, more arrests are made for most crimes (e.g., weapon law violations) than are reflected in the UCR statistics. A single arrest for multiple crimes: A single arrest can cover many separate criminal acts. For example, a person may be arrested once and charged with stealing five automobiles over a period of several weeks. The UCR arrest data would count one arrest for motor vehicle theft. Multiple arrests for a single crime: A single crime can result in multiple arrests. If three people steal an automobile and all are arrested, the UCR arrest statistics would show three arrests for motor vehicle theft. Arrest in the United States, October

Crime in Missouri MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPEMENT DIVISION STATISTICAL ANALYSIS CENTER FOREWORD This publication is produced by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Statistical Analysis

U.S. Depar tment of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention National Report Series December 213 This bulletin is part of the Juvenile Offenders and Victims

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report April 2014 ncj 244205 Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010

ITT Technical Institute, Orlando, Florida Safety and Security Policies with Crime Statistics Report CRIME STATISTICS In each of the specified calendar years, the following number of crimes were reported

Crime Statistics The Clery Act requires colleges and universities to publicly publish three years of campus crime statistics. Daytona State College crime statistics have been disclosed in compliance with

Effects of NIBRS on Crime Statistics Effects of NIBRS on Crime Statistics is a study of NIBRS data submissions 1991 through 2011. Executive Summary When law enforcement agencies switch from reporting crime

Question 1: What is the difference between the Part I and Part II offenses in Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)? Answer 1: Uniform crime reports (UCR) divide offenses into two categories: Part I offenses and

Campus security authority cite 34 CFR 668.46(a) The Clery Act regulation Campus Security Authority is a Clery-specific term that encompasses four groups of individuals and organizations associated with

Crime in Montana 2004-2005 REPORT MBCC MONTANA BOARD OF CRIME CONTROL Crime in Montana 2004-2005 Report Published by the Montana Board of Crime Control Statistical Analysis Center William Mercer, Chair

2015 Campus Safety and Security Survey Institution: Main Campus (392354001) Screening Questions Please answer these questions carefully. The answers you provide will determine which screens you will be

Date of report: Name of campus security authority: Date that incident occurred (mm/dd/yyyy): If multiple incidents were reported or if the date the incident occurred is unknown, please note below: Reporting

WALDO COUNTY Justice Data USM Muskie School of Public Service Maine Statistical Analysis Center Waldo County Facts Waldo County, incorporated in 1827, is in mid coast Maine along Penobscot Bay. The county

Crime in Illinois 2012 Introduction INTRODUCTION 1 Crime in Illinois 2012 The Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting Program Introduction The Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (I-UCR) Program was developed in

Taking a Bite Out of Crime: 46 Years of Utah Crime Statistics August 15, 2008 The 2008 Utah Priorities Survey revealed Crime & Security to be the sixth-highest issue of concern for Utah residents. Specifically,

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report JUNE 2012, NCJ 238546 National Incident-Based Reporting System Violent Crime against the Elderly Reported

213 Campus Safety and Security Survey Institution: Main Campus (1534451) Screening Questions Please answer these questions carefully. The answers you provide will determine which screens you will be asked

Prince William County Police Department 2013 Crime Report A NATIONALLY ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY -Page intentionally left blank- TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview... 2 At a Glance... 3 Part I Crime...

2014 Campus Safety and Security Survey Institution: Colorado Springs Campus (439701005) Criminal Offenses - On campus For each of the following criminal offenses, enter the number reported to have occurred

MAINE CRIME & JUSTICE DATA BOOK 2014 Maine Statistical Analysis Center http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/justiceresearch About the Muskie School of Public Service The Muskie School of Public Service educates

CAMPUS SECURITY INFORMATION ANNUAL CAMPUS SECURITY REPORT-TULSA The following statistics are provided as part of the requirement under the Student Right- To Know and Campus Security Act, Public Law 101-542,

2014 Campus Safety and Security Survey Institution: Main Campus (161581001) Screening Questions Please answer these questions carefully. The answers you provide will determine which screens you will be

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report March 1997, NCJ-160092 Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison By Thomas P. Bonczar and

CRIMINAL LAW STUDY GUIDE Instructor: Dr. Michael Reichard CHAPTER 8 Jurisdiction: Power of a court to decide a case Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear a type of case Original

2014 Campus Safety and Security Survey Institution: Hebrew College (166045001) Screening Questions Please answer these questions carefully. The answers you provide will determine which screens you will

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report National Crime Victimization Survey January 25, NCJ 26836 Violent Victimization of College Students, By

Office of Attorney General Bureau of Criminal Investigation Crime in North Dakota, 0 A Summary of Uniform Crime Report Data Wayne Stenehjem Attorney General Prepared by Colleen Weltz UCR Program Manager

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act This Act requires our school to collect and publish information about certain crimes committed on or near campus. For purposes

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 Statistical Tables National Crime Victimization Survey Table of contents

DELAWARE COUNTY TREATMENT COURT APPLICATION Please read each question carefully before answering. Failure to complete this form accurately will delay the processing of your application. False or misleading

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRENDS Presented at the Criminal Justice Estimating Conference Held July 28, 2015 (Web Site: http://edr.state.fl.us) Table of Contents Criminal Justice Trends i Accuracy of the February

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRENDS Presented at the Criminal Justice Estimating Conference Held February 27, 2015 (Web Site: http://edr.state.fl.us) Table of Contents Criminal Justice Trends i Accuracy of the November

Crime Trends in the City of East Palo Alto November 2010 By Sarah Lawrence and Gregory Shapiro UC Berkeley School of Law Acknowledgements The Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice gratefully acknowledges

High-visibility enforcement is vital to the Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest. mobilization. Studies show that the majority of Americans consider impaired driving one of our nation s most important

2014 Campus Safety and Security Survey Institution: Main Campus (221397001) Screening Questions Please answer these questions carefully. The answers you provide will determine which screens you will be

APPENDIX A Quick Reference Chart for Determining Key Immigration Consequences of Common New York s For information on the applicability of these consequences to a specific noncitizen, see Chapter 3. For

Mercyhurst College Civic Institute An Overview of the Criminal Justice System January 2005 Erika Brown, Research Analyst Art Amann, Director Table of Contents Table of Contents...1 Introduction...2 Methodology...2

Campus Security and Safety Report Madison Center September, 2015 This information is being provided to all students and employees as part of Upper Iowa University's - Madison Center commitment to safety

Human Trafficking in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program This marks the first report from the national UCR Program s Human Trafficking Data Collection. The limited data from the first year of collection

DISQUALIFICATIONS As part of licensing you for childcare, our agency must conduct background study on you and anyone age 13 or older, living in your home or working with the children in care. We will give

Historical Data Historical Data 33 Introduction to Historical Data The arrival of the new millennium provides an opportunity to reflect on the past and consider the challenges of the future. The 2 th century

A Message from the Chief of Police I would like to extend a warm welcome all the new and returning faculty, staff, and students to the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District (SJECCD). Your safety

New York State Uniform Crime Reporting A Supplement to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook STATE OF NEW YORK Division of Criminal Justice Services Office of Justice Research and Performance Content

2015 ANNUAL SECURITY REPORT OCTOBER 2015 TAMPA BAY, FL CAMPUS ANNUAL NOTICE It is the policy of Galen College of Nursing (Galen) to inform prospective and current students and employees about campus security

GUIDE TO CAMPUS SAFETY September 2014 GUIDE TO CAMPUS SAFETY 2013-2014 Public safety is the responsibility of every member of this community, and we encourage the involvement of all community members in

2011 CRIME IN ARIZONA REPORT CRIME IN ARIZONA 2011 An annual report compiled by Access Integrity Unit of the Arizona Department of Public Safety Robert C. Halliday Director Arizona Department of Public

Effective Date: June 2003 Page No. 1 of 12 GENERAL PURPOSE: This policy is intended to provide a process and procedure that will increase awareness of campus safety and security issues and to communicate

1 Liability Report Number: LB-10-66 Release Date: August 6, 2015 Section Title: General Information Abstract School violence not only has a direct impact on students, but also on educators, parents, and